Race-Based Affirmative Action Admissions Policies:Why University of Michigan Supporters
Were Wrong
ROBERT CHERRY*
I. INTRODUCTION
In defending its admissions policies, the University of Michigan chose tocompletely ignore the historic rationale for affirmative action policies: compen-sation for past forms of discrimination faced by underrepresented groups. Theuniversity also failed to comment on the potential problems faced when studentswith weaker skills are admitted. This is particularly important since evidencehas shown that black and Hispanic students perform quite poorly in the mostcompetitive schools. The racial performance gap at these schools “reinforce[s]perceptions of black inferiority and the racial stigma that [are] so damaging toeven high-achieving black students.”1
Instead, University of Michigan supporters chose to defend their policiessolely based on the value to society as a whole of having a diverse studentpopulation.2 In June 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled that theUniversity of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions policieswere unconstitutional.3 More importantly, in agreement with Justice Powell’s1978 opinion,4 the Court indicated that race can be one factor in selectingcollege admits as long as the preference is made on an individualized basis. As aresult, the University of Michigan began revamping its procedures with theexpectation that its new individualized procedure would admit black5 andHispanic students in essentially the same proportion as it had under the old setof policies.
This paper does not judge the diversity argument presented by the Universityof Michigan supporters or the criticisms presented by its detractors. Instead itwill focus on three issues: (1) to what extent is the pursuit of diversityinconsistent with the compensation argument; (2) do affirmative action candi-
University of Michigan where a large bonus for minority status substantially distorted the equity of theadmission process by admitting a large share of affirmative action candidates with very low SAT scores.
2. See Patricia Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on EducationalOutcomes, 72 HARV. ED. REV. 330 (2002); see also Brief for National Association of Scholars as AmiciCuriae, Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (No. 97-75231); see generally The Compelling Needfor Diversity in Higher Education, http://www.umich.edu/�urel/admissions/research/.
3. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).4. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).5. In this paper, I will use the term “black” rather than “African-American,” because the latter term
is increasingly found problematic given the growing diversity of blacks in the United States. See RachelSwarns, African-American Becomes a Term for Debate, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 29, 2004, at A1.
501
dates benefit from going to the most selective colleges regardless of theirqualifications; and (3) did the ending of raced-based affirmative action result ina permanent reduction of black and Hispanic students at California universi-ties.6 Ultimately, I propose that class-based affirmative action and pre-collegeeducational enhancement programs provide a viable alternative to race-basedaffirmative action programs, especially for those who support affirmative actionpolicies primarily as compensation for past forms of discrimination.
II. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADMISSIONS PROGRAMS DO NOT COMPENSATE FOR A
DEFICIENT PRIMARY EDUCATION
Even with affirmative action admissions policies, black and Hispanic studentsare substantially underrepresented in the most selective colleges. AnthonyCarnevale and Stephen Rose estimated that blacks and Hispanics account for15% and 13%, respectively, of 18-year-olds, but they comprise only 6% each ofstudents in the 146 most selective colleges.7 Through the 1980s, the dominantexplanation for this under-representation had been the injustices resulting fromthe inferior schools that most black and Hispanic students attended, suggestingthat affirmative action should primarily aid lower income families who sendtheir children to deficient schools. Instead, data consistently demonstrates thatblack and Hispanic students who attend selective schools are overwhelminglyfrom middle and upper-middle class households (Table 1).8 Carnevale and Rosefound that only 27% of black and Hispanic students in those 146 most selectiveschools come from below average socioeconomic status (SES) families, andfully 60% of black students and 58% of Hispanic students are in the top SESquartile (Table 1).9 Even Derek Bok and William Bowen’s alternative SESmeasure found that only 14% of black students come from the lowest SEScategory in their study.10
Of interest, the share of black students from the lowest SES quartile remains loweven for the next most selective schools (Tier-II) (Table 2). By contrast, 25% of
6. For another critique that touches on some of these points, see Russell Nieli, The Changing Shapeof the River: Affirmative Action and Recent Social Science Research (Oct. 4, 2004), http://www.nas.org/reports/river_change/affirm-act_soc-sci.pdf (critiquing the viewpoint that even under-qualified blacksand Hispanics who gain access to the most selective universities benefit).
7. ANTHONY P. CARNEVALE & STEPHEN J. ROSE, THE CENTURY FOUNDATION, SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS,RACE/ETHNICITY, AND SELECTIVE COLLEGE ADMISSION 10 (2003), http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnevale_rose.pdf.
8. Id. at 11.9. See id. (author’s calculations from data provided by Stephen J. Rose (on file with author)).10. WILLIAM G. BOWEN & DEREK BOK, THE SHAPE OF THE RIVER: LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF
CONSIDERING RACE IN COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS 57 (1998). To be in the highest SES groupingin 1989, Bowen and Bok assume that students must have had at least one parent with a college degreeand come from a family with annual income of at least $70,000. Id. Those in the lowest SES had bothparents lacking a college degree and family annual income of $22,000 or lower. Id. According to theircriteria, in the 1989 matriculating class, 15% of black and 44% of white students were in the top SESgroup, while 14% and 2% of black and white students, respectively, were in the lowest SES group. Id.
502 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
Hispanic students in the Tier-II schools come from the lowest SES quartile.15
Moreover, if the focus was really on benefiting lower SES black and Hispanicstudents, there would have been much more sympathy for the plan implementedin Texas (the Texas Plan)17 because it gives priority to students from the kindsof segregated schools that reflected the historic justification for affirmativeaction admissions programs: compensation for inferior schools caused by pastdiscrimination. Instead, there was strong criticism of these programs by race-based affirmative action admissions supporters.18
Since current affirmative action programs overwhelmingly benefit black andHispanic students from wealthier families, the justification for these programshas increasingly been the promotion of diversity. This shift away from usingpast or continued primary educational inequalities as the basis for affirmative
11. CARNEVALE & ROSE, supra note 7, at 69.12. Author’s calculations from data provided by Stephen J. Rose (on file with author).13. Id.14. Id.15. Id.16. Id.17. The Texas Plan requires the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M to accept every Texas
resident who ranked in the top 10% of his or her high school graduating class.18. See generally Brief for Social Scientists Glenn C. Loury et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting
Respondents, Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (Nos. 02-241 and 02-516).
Table 2. Socioeconomic Status (SES) of Black Students by CollegeSelectivity16
School Tier
SES Quartile
First Second Third Fourth
I. Most Selective 4 23 13 60
II. Selective 7 41 22 29
III. Less Selective 17 23 34 26
IV. Least Selective 36 19 27 18
Table 1. Socioeconomic Status (SES) of Students in the Most SelectiveSchools (Tier I)
SES Quartiles
First Second Third Fourth
All11 3 6 17 74
Black12 4 23 13 60
Hispanic13 17 15 10 58
White14 2 4 18 76
2005] 503RACED-BASED ADMISSIONS
action admissions policies has led some supporters to reject fairness argumentsaltogether. As Richard Kahlenberg states:
Bok argues that a wealthy minority student is not admitted to Harvard as amatter of fairness or reparations but because she adds to the student body. Thewhole concept of “deserving” or “earning” a spot is considered naı̈ve by manymembers of the academy. Students are admitted because they fit the needs ofthe university and the society at a particular point in time not because there isanything intrinsically worthy about them.19
III. UNINTENDED IMPACTS OF RACE-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADMISSIONS
PROGRAMS
Racial preference is often seen as complementing class preference schemes.This would suggest that if all racial preferences were eliminated, not only wouldthere be a substantial reduction in black and Hispanic students but also ofstudents from lower SES backgrounds. Carnevale and Rose found that usingonly traditional performance measures, the black and Hispanic share of studentsin their list of 146 selective colleges would decline from 12% to 4%.20 Some-what surprisingly, however, they estimated that the share of students from lowerSES backgrounds would increase from 10% to 12%.21 Thus, race-based affirma-tive action admissions policies may result in the displacement of white studentsfrom lower SES backgrounds.
Catherine Hoxby also found that non-European immigrant students had adisplacement effect on the share of economically-disadvantaged native-bornstudents: the share of native-born students from low-income families or parentswith limited educational attainment was adversely affected in the middle rangeof colleges—those whose student body had an average combined SAT score ofbetween 900 and 1100—as the number of non-European immigrant studentsincreased.22 Hoxby posited a number of mechanisms by which immigrantscrowd out native-born: (1) displacement and reshaping of educational opportu-nity programs (EOPs) that offer academic and financial support to “education-ally and economically disadvantaged” populations; (2) displacement in selectiveschools of natives by black and Hispanic students from elite Caribbean andLatin American families; and (3) monopolizing and reshaping academic andfinancial counseling services. Studies seem to find that, in general, immigration
19. RICHARD KAHLENBERG, THE CENTURY FOUNDATION, ECONOMIC AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COLLEGE
ADMISSIONS 3 (2003), available at http://www.tcf.org/Publication/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf.20. CARNEVALE & ROSE, supra note 7, at 37.21. Id. at 47.22. Caroline M. Hoxby, Do Immigrants Crowd Disadvantaged American Natives Out of Higher
Education?, in HELP OR HINDERANCE? THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF IMMIGRATION FOR AFRICAN AMERI-CANS 282, 282 (Daniel S. Hamermesh & Frank D. Bean eds., 1998).
504 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
has modestly lowered the educational attainment of native-born students.23
Most relevant here, Hoxby found that at the most selective colleges, approxi-mately thirty-seven native-born black students are displaced for every hundredforeign-born black students admitted and approximately thirty-nine native-bornHispanic for every hundred Hispanic foreign-born admitted. Indeed, there was aone-for-one displacement if the foreign-born students are nonresident aliens.Reflecting the situation at Harvard, Sara Rimer and Karen Arenson reported:
While about 8%, or about 530, of Harvard’s undergraduates were black, LaniGuinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman ofHarvard’s African and African-American studies department, pointed out thatthe majority of them—perhaps as many as two-third—were West Indian andAfrican immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracialcouples.
They said that only about a third of the students were from families inwhich all four grandparents were born in this country, descendants of slaves.24
Thus, current race-based affirmative action programs are not well targeted sincethey allow foreign-born and wealthy native-born applicants to qualify. Indeed, itappears that affirmative action policies displace not only white students fromlower SES backgrounds, but native-born black and Hispanic students as well.
IV. BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDENTS DO NOT BENEFIT FROM AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
ADMISSIONS POLICIES
Even if race-based affirmative action admissions policies primarily serveblacks and Hispanics of higher SES backgrounds and have undesirable displace-ment effects, they might still be defensible if they better the careers of theirbeneficiaries. For many advocates, evidence that these admissions policiesdramatically increase black and Hispanic enrollment at the most selectivecolleges is sufficient for them to claim that the status quo must be maintained.
The problem with this approach is that maintaining the status quo precludesfine-tuning affirmative action admissions policies. In particular, it is importantto assess whether or not there are certain subpopulations of black and Hispanicstudents who are harmed by the status quo of affirmative action policies. The
23. See Julian R. Betts, Educational Crowding Out: Do Immigrants Affect the Educational Attain-ment of American Minorities?, in HELP OR HINDRANCE? THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF IMMIGRATION FOR
AFRICAN AMERICANS 253, 267 (Daniel S. Hamermesh & Frank D. Bean eds., 1998) (estimating thatimmigration in the 1980s lowered the high school graduation rate of blacks and native-born Hispanicsby one and three percentage-points, respectively); see also Mark H. Lopez, Do Immigrants Affect theEducational Attainment of U.S. Born Students? Evidence from NELS:88 (Dec. 1999), available athttp://pweb.jps.net/�lsbonnin/mark/docs/imdec99.pdf (finding that in schools with a significant numberof limited English-proficient students, there was a negative relationship between the share of suchstudents with the educational attainment of non-Hispanic native-born students).
24. Sara Rimer & Karen W. Arenson, Top Colleges Take More Blacks, but Which Ones?, N.Y. TIMES,Jun. 24, 2004, at A24.
2005] 505RACED-BASED ADMISSIONS
measures used to make this assessment include post-graduation earnings data,graduation rates, and college performance.
A. Future Earnings
Bowen and Bok claimed that black students with equal SAT scores hadhigher earnings if they attended the most selective schools, Tier-I, rather thanthe next most selective schools, Tier-II.25 They concluded:
Black students admitted to the most selective [schools] did not pay a penaltyin life after college for having attended such competitive institutions. On thecontrary, the black matriculants with academic credentials that were modestby the standards of these schools appear to have been well advised to go tothe most selective schools to which they were admitted.26
At closer inspection, however, the data used by Bowen and Bok does notcompletely support their claims for those who matriculated in 1976. Amongblack male and black female students with combined SAT scores below 1000,those who had attended Tier-I colleges had higher 1995 incomes than those whohad attended Tier-II colleges. Looking at the record of black students withcombined SAT scores between 1000 and 1199, however, the evidence is lesscompelling. For black men with combined SAT scores between 1100 and 1199,and black women with combined SAT scores between 1000 and 1099, it wasbeneficial to attend a Tier-I rather than a Tier-II school. However, among blackmen with combined SAT scores between 1000 and 1099, 1995 earnings were$83,600 and $91,80027 if they had attended a Tier-I and Tier-II school, respec-tively.28 Similarly, black women with combined SAT scores between 1100 and1199 had lower earnings if they attended a Tier-I, rather than a Tier-II, school—$73,500 versus $83,600.29 Thus, Bowen and Bok’s data on future earningssuggest that black students with competent skills30 do not consistently benefitwhen admissions policies enable them to attend the most selective schools.
One problem with these comparisons is that the students in the Tier-I schoolsmay not be completely comparable with students in the Tier-II schools whohave the same SAT scores. To overcome this selectivity problem, Stacy BergDale and Allan Krueger used a fixed effects model. They found that studentswho attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students whowere accepted by comparable schools but chose to attend less selective col-
25. BOWEN & BOK, supra note 10, at 144.26. Id.27. These earnings figures represent all graduates over a twenty-year period and not first-year
salaries.28. BOWEN & BOK, supra note 10, at 143.29. Id.30. As measured by SAT scores of 1000 and greater.
506 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
leges.31 In particular, Dale and Krueger stated, “[T]he effect on earnings of theaverage SAT score of the school the student attended is indistinguishable fromzero . . . . These results raise doubt about a casual interpretation of the effect ofattending a school with a higher average SAT score in regressions that do notcontrol for selection.”32
B. Graduation Rates
Data consistently demonstrate that the greater the selectivity of the school,the higher the graduation rate, even after controlling for SAT scores. Forexample, Carnevale and Rose found that for students with SAT-equivalentscores between 1000 and 1100, graduation rates were 80% in the top-tiercolleges, 71% in Tier-II colleges, 59% in Tier-III colleges, and only 55% inTier-IV colleges.33
There is one important caveat that must be explored: the graduation rates ofstudents with particularly low SAT-equivalent scores in the most selectivecolleges. Carnevale and Rose believe that an SAT-equivalent score of 1000reflects a “threshold of readiness.”34 That is, they found (Table 3) that gradua-tion rates decline appreciably, especially for black and Hispanic students whohave SAT-equivalent scores of less than this threshold.
To a large extent, the most selective colleges are aware of this problem, so
31. See Stacey B. Dale & Alan B. Krueger, Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More SelectiveCollege: An Application of Selection on Observable and Unobservables, 20-22 (Nat’l Bureau of Econ.Research, Working Paper No. 7322, 1999).
32. Id.33. CARNEVALE & ROSE, supra note 7, at 70 (finding that those in the lowest SES have a 55%
graduation rate but those in the highest SES have 73% graduation rate). They estimated, however, that“[v]irtually all of this 18 percentage point difference is determined by factors prior to enrolling incollege—i.e. SAT scores, high school grades, rigor of high school courses taken, etc.” Id. at 13-14.
34. Id. at 40-43.35. Id.36. Author’s calculations based on data provided by Stephen Rose which have been rounded up to
the nearest whole percentage point (on file with author).37. Id.38. Id. (The anomalously high graduation rate for Hispanics with SAT-equivalent Scores between
1000 and 1200 of 99% is as reflected in the data provided by Stephen Rose).
Table 3. Graduation Rates at Tier-I Schools by SAT Score
Group
Combined SAT-Equivalent Scores
Less Than 1000 1000 to 1200 1200 or Above
All35 52 85 96
White36 56 87 96
Black37 23 63 100
Hispanic38 24 99 85
2005] 507RACED-BASED ADMISSIONS
they admit relatively few students with low SAT-equivalent scores (Table 4). Inparticular, only 15% of black students had SAT-equivalent scores of less than1050, which would place them in the bottom half of the SAT-equivalentdistribution.39 By contrast, only 4% of Hispanic students admitted had such lowSAT scores.40
These findings are consistent with results from law school affirmative actionadmissions policies. More than 20% of black students admitted to law school asa result of affirmative action admissions policies failed to graduate; and of thosewho graduated, 27% were unable to pass a bar exam within three years.42
Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom noted, “[This was] a failure rate nearly triplethat of blacks who were admitted under regular standards, and almost seventimes the white failure rate.”43
Although using a SAT-equivalent score of 1000 to exclude students wouldhave very modest consequences on many of the most selective schools, it canhave a substantial impact on some individual schools. In the mid-1990s, theUniversity of Michigan had been admitting a high proportion of black andHispanic students with very low SAT scores. This outcome occurred because ofthe very limited value placed on these scores in Michigan’s admissions process.In particular, a student with a combined SAT score between 900 and 1010received six of the possible twelve points. For black and Hispanic students, thisshortfall was more than compensated for by the twenty point bonus they
39. Id.40. Id.41. Id; see also CARNEVALE & ROSE, supra note 7, at 78.42. Carnevale and Rose also found that low SAT scores limited the likelihood of post-graduate
education:
While relatively few who had SAT-equivalent scores below 1000 pursued graduate education,fully 38% of those who scored above 1200 attended graduate school . . . . [I]n top tiercolleges, nearly half went on to graduate school if their SAT-equivalent scores were above1200, while only one-quarter went on if their scores were between 1000 and 1200. The fewstudents with scores below 1000 at these institutions had an even lower percent of graduateschool participation.
CARNEVALE & ROSE, supra note 7, at 14-15.43. Stephan Thernstrom & Abigail Thernstrom, Racial Preference: What We Know Now, 107
COMMENT. 44, 48 (1999).
Table 4. Distribution of SAT Scores in the Most Selective Colleges41
SES-Equivalent Quartile
First Second Third Fourth
All 3 2 12 83
Black 9 6 28 55
Hispanic – 4 11 82
White 3 1 9 81
508 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
received for having underrepresented minority status (UMS).As a result, UMS students attending the University of Michigan had much
lower traditional qualifications than non-UMS students. Whereas 98% of non-UMS freshmen in 1995—the class that was the basis of the Supreme Courtcase—had at least a 3.2 high school cumulative grade point average (GPA) anda combined SAT score of at least 1000, only 44% of UMS students met thiscriterion.44 If a minimum combined SAT score of 1000 was required, UMSstudents would have declined from 14.01% to 7.21% of the 1995 freshmanclass.45 This evidence suggests that a significant proportion of black andHispanic students admitted under previous admissions policies would have haddifficulty graduating. Unfortunately, the University of Michigan has been unwill-ing to release graduation data.
C. School Performance
Not all graduates from the same school gain the same in terms of income andcareers. For example, Bowen and Bok found that moving from being ranked inthe lowest third of their class to being ranked in the top third increased the 1995annual earnings of black male and black female graduates who matriculated in1976 from $68,500 to $115,800 and $56,600 to $72,800, respectively.46 Ifattending a more selective school is likely to lower class rank, these admissionspolicies have a problematic impact on earnings. Indeed, Dale and Kruegerestimated that shifting up in selectivity lowered class rank by about sevenpercentile-points, lowering earnings by about 3.2 % which “may largely offsetany advantage of attending a more elite school on earnings.”47
This is of particular importance since it is well documented that, on average,black students at the most selective colleges have much lower grades than dowhite students. For example, Bowen and Bok found that black 1989 matricu-lants at their sample of very selective schools had a GPA of 2.61, whereas theirwhite classmates had a 3.15 GPA.48 As a result, Bowen and Bok found that “theaverage rank of black matriculants was at the 23rd percentile of the class, theaverage Hispanic student ranked in the 36th percentile, and the average whitestudent ranked in the 53rd percentile.”49
44. CHERRY, supra note 1, at 214.45. Id. at 214-16. If the university only required a minimum 3.2 GPA, but no SAT minimum, UMS
students would comprise 12.29% of freshmen; and if the university required both minimum 3.2 GPAand minimum combined 1000 SAT, UMS students would comprise 6.91% of freshmen.
46. BOWEN & BOK, supra note 10, at 141.47. Dale & Krueger, supra note 31, at 29.48. BOWEN & BOK, supra note 10, at 7.49. Id. Law school data show even greater discrepancies. Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks find that
excluding the law schools at historically black colleges, “only 6.7% of whites have lower grades than50% of blacks . . . only 7.5% of blacks have grades that are higher than the white median.” Ian Ayres &Richard Brooks, Does Affirmative Action Reduce the Number of Black Lawyers? 2 (Jan. 2005)(unpublished manuscript, on file with author). As a result, they estimate that “[i]n the LSAC data,42.6% of blacks entering law school had less than a 50% chance of becoming lawyers within 5 years of
2005] 509RACED-BASED ADMISSIONS
Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber’s data on grades and SAT scores of a sampleof students from some of the most selective schools underscores these racialdifferences.50 Their study included liberal arts majors from all eight Ivy Leaguecolleges and thirteen very selective private liberal arts colleges.51 Among theseschools, few students had a GPA of less than a B-. There was, however, asubstantial racial difference in grade distribution.52 Whereas 44% and 34% ofliberal arts majors in the Ivy League and liberal arts schools surveyed, respec-tively, had a GPA of at least an A-, only 20% and 7% of black liberal artsmajors, respectively, did so.53
Cole and Barber found that once the quality of the school was held constant,SAT scores had a powerful predictive power (Table 5). For example, in the IvyLeague and very selective liberal arts colleges in their sample, almost one-halfof those liberal arts majors with an SAT score of at least 1300 had a GPA of atleast an A-, while less than 15% of those with less than a 1200 SAT score did.
Cole and Barber also sought high-achieving black liberal arts majors—thosewith at least a 2.8 GPA at the end of their junior year—at nine large stateuniversities that were among Carnevale and Rose’s Tier-II grouping.55 Giventheir overall size and the fact that a number of these universities were selectedbecause they had a numerically large African-American representation, theyinitially hoped to find a large number of students for their study. Once theychecked SAT scores of black students, however, Cole and Barber concludedthat:
starting law school (Virtually no entering white students—0.2%— are in this high risk category).” Id. at3; see also Richard Sander, A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools, 57STAN. L. REV. 367 (2004).
50. STEPHEN COLE & ELINOR BARBER, INCREASING FACULTY DIVERSITY 194, 297 (2003).51. Id. at 297.52. Id.53. Id. at 194, 297.54. Id. at 297.55. Ohio State University, Rutgers University, SUNY at Stony Brook, UCLA, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia, the University ofWashington, Seattle, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Table 5. Percentage of Students with at Least an A- GPA, by SAT Scoresand College54
Schools
SAT Scores
Less than 1200 1200 to 1299 At Least 1300
Ivy League 14 22 51
Liberal Arts 10 25 44
State Universities 28 35 52
510 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
[T]he 100 elite schools in the country are admitting virtually all of theacademically best-prepared students. This means that in the overwhelmingmajority of schools in the country, including the state universities . . . in oursample, there were very few minority students who met our criteria of beingan arts and science major and having a GPA of 2.8 or above.56
In particular, at these state universities, they estimated that only 28% of blackliberal arts majors also had at least a 2.8 GPA, whereas 41% of Hispanic and65% of white liberal arts majors did.57
V. UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF BLACK STUDENTS AT VERY SELECTIVE COLLEGES
There has been substantial criticism of using SAT scores for admissionspurposes. Indeed, as Cherry pointed out in Who Gets the Good Jobs?, prior toProposition 209, the University of California at Berkeley had an admissionsformula that placed too much weight on these scores.58 In addition, there issome evidence that, although SAT scores may be an important predictor ofacademic success for white students, it is a much poorer predictor for blackstudents. Cole and Barber found, however, that its predictive power held forblack liberal arts majors once the selectivity of the colleges attended was takeninto account.
Within school groupings, Table 6 indicates that the share of well-performingstudents attaining a GPA of at least A- is directly related to their SAT scores.Not surprisingly, this relationship is strongest in the most selective schools.Whereas black students with high SAT scores were four times (24/6) as likely tohave a GPA of at least A- as black students with low SAT scores at the mostselective schools, they were only about thrice as likely (43/16) to do so at thestate universities, and only about twice as likely (55/26) at the historically blackcolleges in Cole’s survey.60
56. COLE & BARBER, supra note 50, at 48.57. Id. at 221.58. CHERRY, supra note 1, at 222.59. COLE & BARBER, supra note 50, at 126.60. Cole and Barber indicate one interesting ramification of black students at selective schools
having low SAT scores. Their study was attempting to understand why there were so few black faculty
Table 6. Percentage of Black Students with a GPA of at Least A-by SAT Scores and College Among Students with a GPA of at Least 2.859
Schools
SAT Scores
Less than 1200 1200 to 1299 At Least 1300
Elite 6 14 24
State 16 23 43
Historically Black 26 38 55
2005] 511RACED-BASED ADMISSIONS
Some critics also claim that the SAT is biased against black test takers.Research has consistently rejected any direct racial bias in the SAT; however,there have been some recent criticisms of the selection and importance given tovarious SAT exam questions.61 Jeffrey Young reported that based on theiroverall predictive reliability, the SAT developers reject sample questions atwhich black test takers perform relatively better and keep sample questions atwhich white test takers perform relatively better.62 Freedle and Kostin foundthat black test takers perform relatively better with more difficult SAT questionsand white test takers perform relatively better with easier questions.63 Thus,these critics contend that if the SAT gave more weight to difficult questions andchanged their selection from sample questions, black SAT scores would riserelative to white SAT scores.
There is a fundamental problem, however, with this implicit claim that thecurrent SAT understates the basic skills of black test takers. If this were true,then black students should outperform white students with the same SAT scoresin college. But the evidence indicates that black students actually underperformrelative to white students with the same SAT scores.64 We can observe thisunderperformance if we compare Tables 5 and 6. Whereas at the most selectiveschools, approximately 50% of all students with an SAT score of at least 1300had a GPA of at least an A-, only 24% of black students with comparable SATscores have as high a GPA.65 Whereas about 25% of all students attending themost selective colleges who had SAT scores between 1200 and 1300 had a GPAof at least an A-, only 14% of black students with comparable SAT scores hadas high a GPA.66 More generally, Cole and Barber estimated that at the mostselective schools, the GPA of black students was approximately 0.20 percentage
members. When entering college, high-achieving black students were just as likely as their whitecounterparts to consider college teaching as a vocation. Cole and Barber noted, however, one importantdifference. While high-achieving black liberal arts majors were just as likely to consider “teachingonly,” they were much less likely to indicate an interest in “teaching and research” or “research only”than high-achieving white liberal arts majors.
One plausible explanation is that incoming black students were much less likely to have beenexposed to research than incoming white students and, therefore, were less likely to know what it is.Cole and Barber favored another explanation: incoming students realize that research requires the useof quantitative methods and since black students have lower math SAT scores, they are more likely tobelieve that they would not be able to succeed at research. Cole found that when SAT scores were takeninto account, there were no statistically significant differences in freshman interest in research betweenblack and white students. See COLE & BARBER, supra note 50.
61. Christopher Jencks, Racial Bias in Testing, in THE BLACK-WHITE TEST SCORE GAP 55-85 (Christo-pher Jencks & Meredith Phillips eds., 1998).
62. Jeffrey R. Young, Researchers Charge Racial Bias on SAT, CHRON. OF HIGHER EDUC., Oct. 10,2003, at A34.
63. Roy O. Freedle, Correcting the SAT’s Ethnic and Social-Class Bias: A Method for ReestimatingSAT Scores, 73 HARV. ED. REV. 1, 3 (2003).
64. See Ayres and Brooks, supra note 49, at 29 (finding a similar pattern in law schools where “blacklaw students are 20 percentage points less likely to become lawyers than white law students with thesame entering credentials attending the same tier schools”).
65. COLE & BARBER, supra note 50, at 126, 297.66. Id.
512 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
points below that of white students with the same SAT score.67
Cole and Barber believe that the reason for this underperformance is primar-ily due to the theory proposed by Claude Steele.68 Steele writes that in theUnited States, a negative stereotype exists that portrays blacks as being lessintelligent than whites. This stereotype affects black students adversely becausethey tend to have much less confidence in their academic abilities and fear thattheir performance will confirm this negative stereotype. Steele found that theseattitudes were most strongly held among high-achieving black students. Steeledemonstrated that this attitude leads black students to “give up” more easilythan white students when confronted with a particularly challenging exam oncethey are told that results show black students do not perform as well on thatexam as white students.69
Steele and other supporters of race-based affirmative action admissions primar-ily used these findings to explain the low performance of black students on theSAT. Interestingly, this was not particularly pertinent to the University ofMichigan case since the school’s admissions process so devalues the SAT.Instead, Steele’s findings can go a long way to explain the underperformance ofblack students at selective schools. For many black students, basic courseworkand classroom tests are quite stressful. Rather than fully competing for the bestpossible grades, Steele’s thesis suggests that many black students fear failing somuch that they “give up,” just as they did in the challenging test he adminis-tered. Because these stresses are not as significant at the state universities hesampled, the underperformance is much less at these schools than at the mostselective schools surveyed.
Indeed, in a comprehensive survey of college freshmen, Massey et al. foundthat at the very selective schools in the Bowen and Bok sample, black andLatino freshmen were much more likely to drop a course and attained signifi-cantly lower grades on the courses they completed than either white or Asianfreshmen.70 While skill preparation was a factor, they “found clear and consis-tent statistical evidence that stereotype vulnerability worked to undermine theacademic performance of black and Latino students above and beyond whateverdeficits they experienced with respect to academic, financial, social, or psycho-logical preparation for college.”71
Cole and Barber also briefly explored an alternative explanation for blackunderperformance: studying hard and competing academically violate black
67. Id. at 293.68. Claude M. Steele, A Threat is in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and
Performance, 52 AM. PSYCHOLOGIST 613 (1997); see also Claude M. Steele & Joshua Aronson,Stereotype Threat and the Test Performance of Academically Successful African-Americans, in THE
BLACK-WHITE TEST SCORE GAP 401 (Christopher Jencks & Meredith Philips eds., 1998).69. Steele, supra note 68, at 618-22.70. DOUGLAS S. MASSEY ET AL., THE SOURCE OF THE RIVER: THE SOCIAL ORIGINS OF FRESHMEN AT
AMERICA’S SELECTIVE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 195 (2003).71. Id.
2005] 513RACED-BASED ADMISSIONS
cultural norms. This explanation reflects the perception that academic success isfrowned on among black youth who disparagingly label it as “acting white.”72
There is substantial anecdotal literature that supports this explanation.73 Despiteits weak scientific basis, many believe that it is one explanation for blackunderperformance.74
Cole and Barber do estimate a slight negative correlation between the aca-demic performance of black students and their association with black organiza-tions, black cultural awareness, or black campus protests. Interestingly, PatriciaGurin also found that weakly performing black students were much more likelyto take ethnic studies courses than strongly performing black students.75 Myown interpretation of black underperformance does not reflect an anti-academiccultural norm, but rather the adverse effect of victimization ideology. That is, Ibelieve that black studies courses and black protest organizations are dominatedby victimization rhetoric—the system is stacked against black people so thatfailure is unavoidable. While this victimization thesis may somewhat combatfeelings of academic inferiority, it weakens the academic efforts of blackstudents. This is the view echoed by UC-Berkeley linguistics professor, JohnMcWhorter:
Most blacks don’t live in poverty or face overwhelming odds, he argues. But. . . blacks who are part of a growing middle class tend to exaggerate theiroppression. This ‘victimology’ mind-set coupled with repudiation of ‘white’mainstream culture is what keeps them from being the best they can be inschool and beyond.76
Data presented by Cole and Barber are consistent with this victimizationthesis. They report that a significant number of black students claimed that theyhad experienced discrimination at school.77 In particular, at the predominantlywhite schools surveyed, 23% of black students indicated that “some facultymembers at the college they attended had made their undergraduate experience
72. See Bob Herbert, Breaking Away, N.Y. TIMES, Jul. 10, 2003, at A23.73. See, e.g., JOHN H. MCWHORTER, LOSING THE RACE: SELF-SABOTAGE IN BLACK AMERICA (2000).74. For the controversy stirred when Bill Cosby supported this cultural thesis, see Deepti Hajela,
Cosby Remarks on Blacks Draw Fire, Support, ASSOCIATED PRESS WIRE SERVICE, May 30, 2004,available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/511320; Cynthia Tucker, Bill Cosby’s Plain-SpokennessComes Not a Moment Too Soon, Sept. 25, 2004, available at http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/uExpress/2004/09/25/587543?extID�10032&oliID�213. For a critique of this cultural explanation for blackunder-performance, see Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig, The Burden of “Acting White”: Do BlackAdolescents Disparage Academic Achievement?, in THE BLACK-WHITE TEST SCORE GAP 375 (Christo-pher Jencks & Meredith Phillips, eds., 1998).
75. Expert Report of Patricia Gurin, Gratz v. Bollinger, 135 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D Mich. 2001) (No.97-75321), available at http://www.umich.edu/�urel/admissions/legal/expert/summ.html.
76. MCWHORTER, supra note 73, construed in Rona Marech, Why Do Black Students Lag Behind?,THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRON., Feb. 2, 2001, at 1.
77. COLE & BARBER, supra note 50, at 197.
514 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
more difficult because of their ‘racial/ethnic background.’”78 By contrast, only10% of Hispanic students answered affirmatively.79 Cole and Barber discountedthe claim that discrimination affected their grades because entering complaintsinto the regression analysis did not have a statistically significant effect onpredicted GPA.
Cole and Barber also report that grades had a substantial impact on the degreeto which black students were “very satisfied” with their undergraduate educa-tion (Table 7). At Ivy League schools, there was a fourteen percentage-point gapbetween the share of white and black students who were very satisfied with theirundergraduate education. When the comparison was restricted to only thosestudents who had a GPA of at least an A-, this gap was reduced to sixpercentage points. Indeed, at state universities, when the comparison wasrestricted to only those with a GPA of at least an A-, black students had a threepercentage-point higher share than white students of those who were “verysatisfied.” Only at the very selective liberal arts colleges surveyed was the gapsubstantial even when the comparison was restricted to students with a GPA ofat least an A-.
In sum, raced-based affirmative action policies might not benefit black andHispanic students and may actually harm some students who have gainedadmission to the most selective colleges because of these policies.
VI. IMPACT OF THE ELIMINATION OF RACE-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
ADMISSIONS POLICIES
After Proposition 209 ended the race-based affirmative action admissionspolicies in California, the number of black and Chicano freshmen at UC-Berkeley each declined by about 44% and 23%, respectively.81 Cecilia Conrad
78. Id.79. Id.80. Id.81. University of California, Office of the President, Application, Admissions and Enrollment of
California Resident Freshmen from Fall 1995 through 2003, Application Flow Reports for New
Table 7. Percentage of Students Very Satisfied with UndergraduateEducation, by School Type, Race, and GPA80
School
All Students (White-Black) Difference
White BlackAll
Students A-Students
Ivy League 43 29 14 6
Liberal Arts 50 26 24 23
State Universities 32* 28* 4* -3
*Only those students with a GPA of 2.8 or higher.
2005] 515RACED-BASED ADMISSIONS
and Rhonda Sharpe documented how these effects duplicated changes that hadalready occurred in acceptance rates at state medical schools.82 In 1995, Califor-nia medical schools began eliminating underrepresented minority status as anadmissions factor and began substituting socio-economic status. Just as with theundergraduate enrollment, this shift to a class-based preference system ad-versely affected both black and Chicano applicants.
The collapse of black freshmen enrollment at UC-Berkeley caused manyprevious critics of race-based affirmative action admissions policies to reevalu-ate their position. In particular, a former critic, Glenn Loury, spearheaded anamicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court that argued against class-basedaffirmative action admissions policies providing an acceptable alternative torace-based affirmative action admissions policies.83 In a separate essay, Lourysuggested that the stability of democracy rested on its ability to have a raciallyintegrated elite and that this was only possible if the most selective collegeswere racially integrated.84 Indeed, maintaining racial diversity became themajor justification given for race-based affirmative action admissions policiesby numerous New York Times editorials: Without race-based affirmative actionadmissions policies, there would be virtually no black students enrolled in themost selective colleges.85
Nonetheless, with the termination of racial preferences, California movedtoward a class-based affirmative action admissions process and dramaticallyexpanded its developmental programs in economically-disadvantaged highschools, especially those with a large proportion of Hispanic and black enroll-ment. As a result, there was a substantial rebound in black and Chicanofreshman enrollments in the UC system.86 Chicano system-wide freshmenenrollment was higher in 2003 than 1997, the last year before Proposition 209,and the Chicano share of total UC enrollment is substantially higher. Evenblack system-wide freshmen enrollment was up numerically, and only modestlylower as a share of total freshmen enrollment. Overall black, Chicano, andLatino freshman enrollment as a share of total freshmen enrollment increased
Students (2003), available at http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/flowfrc9503.pdf. UC data oftencombines Chicanos and Latinos to form the underrepresented Hispanic grouping. Since Chicanos aremuch less likely to be foreign and from a high SES family than Latinos, I decided to only use Chicanos.The results are essentially the same for the broader classification.
82. Cecilia A. Conrad & Rhonda V. Sharpe, The Impact of the California Civil Rights Initiative(CCRI) on University and Professional School Admissions and the Implications for the CaliforniaEconomy, 25 REV. BLACK POL. ECON. 13 (1996).
83. See Brief for Social Scientists Glenn C. Loury et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent,supra note 18.
84. Glenn C. Loury, Affirmative Action and Reaction; Admissions (and Denials) of Responsibility,N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 29, 2003, at A11.
85. See, e.g., Editorial, Upholding Affirmative Action, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 3, 2002, at A30; Editorial,Fighting Resegregation, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 27, 2003, at A24; Editorial, Friends of Affirmative Action,N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 1, 2003, at A18.
86. University of California, Office of the President, supra note 81.
516 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
from 17.1% in 1997 to 17.9% in 2003.87
If we look at the two flagship colleges, UC-Berkeley and UCLA, black andChicano freshmen enrollments have not completely rebounded. At UC-Berkeleyin 2002, black freshmen enrollment as a share of total UC-Berkeley freshmenenrollment was only 4.25%, whereas it was 7.84% in 1997.89 For Chicanos,their share fell more modestly from 11.98% to 8.83%.90 At UCLA, the picturewas much better for Chicanos, as their share rose from 11.90% to 12.38%.91
The focus on the black freshmen enrollment decline at UC-Berkeley wasmisplaced. During the mid-1990s, the number of black freshmen enrolledthrough the regular admissions process stagnated at UC-Berkeley. To compen-sate, in 1996 and 1997, UC-Berkeley substantially increased the number ofblacks entering through executive exceptions. As a result, in 1997, 27.48% ofall black freshmen enrolled system-wide were at UC-Berkeley, while only16.72%, 15.17%, and 9.62% of Asian, Chicano, and white system-wide fresh-men, respectively, were enrolled there. A black linguistics professor at UC-Berkeley, John McWhorter, lamented that during the early 1990s, “blackundergraduates at UC-Berkeley tended to be among the worst students oncampus, by any estimation.”92 These distinctive efforts at UC-Berkeley explainwhy its black freshman enrollment declined disproportionately once racialpreferences were purged from both the regular admissions and executive excep-
87. Id. This is the measure of under-represented minorities used by the University of California.88. University of California, Office of the President, supra note 81.89. Id.90. Id.91. UCLA began reducing black and Chicano enrollment prior to Proposition 209. In 1996, blacks
and Chicanos comprised 6.25% and 14.55%, respectively, of total freshmen enrollment. In addition, the2003 figure is a record low and substantially below the previous year (3.11% versus 4.05%). Id.
92. JOHN H. MCWHORTER, LOSING THE RACE: SELF-SABOTAGE IN BLACK AMERICA 89 (2000).
Table 8. Black and Chicano Freshmen in University of California, 1997and 2003.88
tions procedures.93 In 2003, black freshmen at UC-Berkeley comprised 14.34%of all black freshmen system-wide, still a larger concentration than any of theother groups.94
VII. CLASS-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
RACE-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADMISSIONS POLICIES
While Loury believes that a test of democracy is whether or not its elite areracially integrated,95 most ordinary people place much more value on classmobility. A society is deemed fair if working-class youth have a chance tobecome a member of the elite. Carnevale and Rose document polls that consis-tently find widespread support for class-based affirmative action admissionseven among those who rejected race-based affirmative action admissions poli-cies.96 In their survey, “two-thirds of respondents said qualified low-incomestudents should, at least in some cases, have an advantage in college admissionsover equally qualified students from non-poor families.”97
Unfortunately, Bowen and Bok aggressively reject class-based affirmativeaction admissions policies. They claim, “[t]he problem is not that poor butqualified candidates go undiscovered, but that there are simply too few of thesecandidates in the first place.”98 Richard Kahlenberg suggests, “[i]n Bowen andBok’s pessimistic view of how well poor and working-class students canperform, one may detect shadows of Harvard president James Bryant Conant’sopposition to the GI Bill, which he incorrectly thought would overpopulatehigher education with underqualified students.”99
Carnevale and Rose note the large untapped supply of qualified students fromlow SES families: only 44% went directly to four-year colleges, while 31% ofeconomically-disadvantaged students who score in the top quartile on the NELStests are not enrolled in post-secondary schools.100 They estimate that if class-based affirmative action replaced race-based affirmative action admissions poli-cies, economically disadvantaged students would rise from 10% to 38% of
93. Of note, the yield rate—the percentage of those admitted who signed a letter of intent—forblacks dropped from 62.8% to 48.6% between 1997 and 2003. Virtually all of this decline can beexplained by the reduction in the numbers admitted to UC-Berkeley and UCLA, where the yield rateswere unchanged. The reduction in system-wide yield rates, but not at individual campuses, stronglysuggests that those black applicants who were not accepted at the two flagship universities (but at otherUC campuses) chose to go elsewhere. See University of California Office of the President, supra note81.
94. In 2003, 13.43%, 8.57%, and 8.99% of Asian, Chicano, and white freshmen system-wide,respectively, were enrolled at UC-Berkeley. See University of California, Office of the President, supranote 81.
95. See Brief for Social Scientists Glenn C. Loury et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent,supra note 18.
96. CARNEVALE & ROSE, supra note 7, at 29.97. Id.98. BOWEN & BOK, supra note 10, at 44.99. KAHLENBERG, supra note 19, at 6.100. CARNEVALE AND ROSE, supra note 7, at 39.
518 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
students in the 146 most selective colleges, and graduation rates would rise aswell.101
Unfortunately, as long as race-based affirmative action policies reign, schoolsseem unwilling to take economic diversity seriously. Noting that the percentageof student Pell Grant recipients is a reasonable proxy for economic disadvan-tage, Kahlenberg states:
It is probably no accident that among Donald Heller’s list of colleges rankedby percentage of Pell recipients, leaders included institutions in states wherethe use of race is banned—U.C. Berkeley (32.4 percent) and UCLA (35.1percent)—while at the other extreme are public universities such as theUniversity of Virginia (8.6 percent) and William and Mary (8.0 percent)where the use of race continues.102
He also is not surprised that the share is only 7% at Bowen’s Princeton andBok’s Harvard.
Michigan supporters also attacked class-based affirmative action admissionspolicies.103 They criticized the Texas Plan because it relies on segregatedschools to sustain black and Hispanic enrollment at flagship colleges. If,however, affirmative action admissions policies are meant to be compensatory,the Texas Plan is more effective than race-based affirmative action admissionspolicies because the black and Hispanic students benefiting will be coming inmuch larger proportions from academically inferior segregated schools. More-over, if segregated schooling declines, there should be a decline in the need foraffirmative action admissions policies.
A more modest criticism of the Texas Plan is that it is not applicable toMichigan because Hispanic students are not as residentially segregated as theyare in Texas. If this is correct, a modified version of the Texas Plan would stillbe quite effective. By accepting the top 10%, Michigan would still recruit manyblack students from segregated high schools. In addition, Michigan could adoptan individualized class-based plan; California has shown that these policieshave been quite effective in maintaining Hispanic enrollment.
The next line of criticism comes very close to the Bowen and Bok argument.The amici curiae contended that the black and Hispanic students accepted underthe Texas Plan displaced black and Hispanic students who had higher SAT
101. Id. at 55.102. KAHLENBERG, supra note 19, at 8. This high level of economically disadvantaged students at
UC-Berkeley and UCLA is at odds with continued criticism that the individualized system enacted isjust a disguised method of perpetuating race-based affirmative action admissions. For an example ofthis conservative criticism, see Harold Johnson, Have UC Regents Found a Sneaky Way Around Lawthat Forbids Any Race Preference?, PAC. LEGAL FOUN., Aug. 6, 2004, http://www.pacific legal.org/list_Commentaries.asp?curpage�8 (follow “Have UC Regents Found a Sneaky Way Around Law thatForbids Any Race Preference?” hyperlink).
103. Benjamin Forest, Affirmative Action—And Reaction: A Policy That Depends on Segregation,N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 29, 2003, at A11.
2005] 519RACED-BASED ADMISSIONS
scores and were from better schools than the economically disadvantagedstudents accepted under the Texas plan.104
I am not overly sympathetic to this argument. Critics focus on the reducedSAT test scores and educational skills of black and Hispanic students acceptedunder the Texas Plan.105 However, students who rank in the top 10% of theirhigh school class are “strivers,” possessing potentials that have been untappedwhereas the “stronger” black and Hispanic middle-class students who attendedacademically superior schools have already demonstrated that they are likely tobe outperformed at a very high level. After studying college performance, BrianBucks concluded, “[c]ontrary to critics’ concerns, . . . [compared to perfor-mance under pre-Hopwood affirmative action policies,] . . . minorities’ relativeacademic achievement has improved with the adoption of race-neutral policiesin Texas.”106 Specifically, he found that GPAs and retention rates improvedsubstantially. For example, freshman year GPAs at the University of Texas atAustin for black and Hispanic students increased by 0.35 and 0.25 points,respectively, from their pre-Hopwood levels.107 And black and Hispanic reten-tion rates after five semesters increased by 12.1 and 12.3 percentage points,respectively.108 Not surprisingly, the amicus curiae brief considered the skill-enhancing programs instituted at the University of Texas at Austin as evidenceof the inferiority of the Texas Plan.109
VIII. SUMMARY REMARKS
The more recent evidence presented here strengthens the position that it isharmful to enroll inadequately prepared black and Hispanic students in the mostselective colleges and that a focus on class-based affirmative action admissionsprograms is a more equitable and effective method of creating constructivediversity at these colleges. Race-based affirmative action admissions policiescannot be justified because they offset economic disadvantage, because theyprovide academic and/or financial benefits to black and Hispanic students, orbecause there is no better way to diversify selective colleges. In particular, alarge proportion of black students performs poorly and becomes disenchantedwith their college experience. The perception of academic inferiority of blackstudents grows among their fellow white and Asian students and is internalized.Alternatively, as Kahlenberg suggests, class-based affirmative action admissions
104. See Brief for Social Scientists Glenn C. Loury et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents,supra note 18.
105. Id.106. Brian Bucks, Affirmative Access Versus Affirmative Action: How Have Texas’ Race-Blind
Policies Affected College Outcomes? 3 (Nov. 1, 2004), http://www.utdallas.edu/research/tsp/pdfpapers/paper33.pdf.
107. Id. at 25.108. Id. at 26.109. See Brief for Social Scientists Glenn C. Loury et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents,
Gratz supra note 18.
520 [Vol. 3:501THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY
policies can sustain comparable rates of black and Hispanic enrollment whileincreasing dramatically the number of economically disadvantaged students atthe most selective colleges.110
I believe, however, that the most important means to correct the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics at the most selective colleges is toaddress pre-college education enhancement affirmative action policies. Thesepolicies have been effective in increasing the number of black and Hispanicstudents who qualify for the UC system and those who graduate the militaryacademies and officer training programs.111 It was interesting that the success ofthe military policies has been used by supporters of the University of Michi-gan’s case.112 Rather than lowering standards, Charles Moskos and John Butlerdemonstrate how the military was successful because it practiced developmentalaffirmative action so that blacks and Hispanics met the same formal standardsfor performance on standardized exams as all others.113
The harmful effects of race-based affirmative action admissions policies seemso transparent that one hopes that the University of Michigan, in reformulatingits admissions policies, follows the California example, and genuinely pursuesmore of a class-based approach. They must not allow faculty and administrativeinterests in having a racially-diverse student body to override concerns for thebest interests of applicants. While the class-based approach may create ashortfall of black and Hispanic students in the short run, it will gain substantialeconomic diversity and the students enrolled will have an improved academicperformance compared to those in the present situation.
110. KAHLENBERG, supra note 19, at 6.111. CHERRY, supra note 1, at 226-28.112. Brent Staples, What the U.S. Army Teaches Us About Affirmative Action, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 6,
2003, at A20; Adam Clymer, Service Academies Defend Use of Race in Their Admissions Policies, N.Y.TIMES, Jan 28, 2003, at A17.
113. See generally CHARLES MOSKOS & JOHN BUTLER, ALL THAT WE CAN BE (1996).
